Miller et al v. Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota
Plaintiff: Shannon Miller, Jen Banford and Annette Wiles
Defendant: The Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota
Case Number: 0:2015cv03740
Filed: September 28, 2015
Court: US District Court for the District of Minnesota
Office: DMN Office
County: Hennepin
Presiding Judge: Leo I. Brisbois
Presiding Judge: Richard H. Kyle
Nature of Suit: Employment
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
April 22, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 752 ORDER granting 731 Motion for Summary Judgment.(Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on 4/22/2021. (CLG)
September 6, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 699 ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1 Defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, or remittitur 628 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. a. The motion is GRANTED to the extent that the Court conditionally grants a new trial on the issue of past non-economic damages. b. No later than 12:00 noon on Friday, September 20, 2019, plaintiff must file a letter stating whether she will remit $2,250,000 of the jury's $3,000,000 award of past non-economic d amages. If plaintiff chooses to remit, the Court will enter judgment. If plaintiff chooses not to remit, the Court will schedule a new trial on the issue of past non-economic damages. c. The motion is DENIED in all other respects. 2. Plaintiff& #039;s motion to amend the judgment 624 is GRANTED IN PART. a. Plaintiff shall recover $71,529.14 in prejudgment interest on the backpay award. b. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961, plaintiff is entitled to recover post-judgment interest a ccruing from the date of the original judgment at the rate of 2.56 percent computed daily and compounded annually until the date of payment. 3. Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and non-taxable costs 618 is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff shall recover $2,327,772.63 in attorney's fees and $99,445.55 in expenses. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on 9/6/2019. (CLG)
February 13, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 615 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 601 Motion for Reinstatement or Front Pay. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiff's motion for reinstatement or front pay 601 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 2. Plaintiff shall recover from defendant the total sum of $4,206,110, consisting of (1) $461,278 in front pay and future benefits; (2) $ 744,832 in back pay and past benefits; and (3) $3,000,000 in other past damages. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on 2/13/2019. (CLG)
February 1, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 501 ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. UMD's motion for summary judgment on Annette Wiles's claims 75 is GRANTED. All of Wiles's federal claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AND ON THE MERITS. All of Wiles's state claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. 2. UMD's motion for summary judgment on Jen Banford's claims 82 is GRANTED. All of Banford's federal claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AND ON THE MERITS. All of Banford' ;s state claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. 3. UMD's motion for summary judgment on Shannon Miller's claims 79 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. All of Miller's federal claims -- save her Title V II discrimination and Title IX retaliation claims -- are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AND ON THE MERITS. All of Miller's state claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. 4. UMD's motion for separate trials 273 is DENIED AS MOOT. And 5. UMD's motion to exclude the expert testimony of Donna Lopiano, Ph.D. 69 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on February 1, 2018. (CLG)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Minnesota District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Miller et al v. Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: The Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Shannon Miller
Represented By: Tyler P Brimmer
Represented By: Andrew T James
Represented By: Donald Chance Mark, Jr
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Jen Banford
Represented By: Tyler P Brimmer
Represented By: Andrew T James
Represented By: Donald Chance Mark, Jr
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Annette Wiles
Represented By: Tyler P Brimmer
Represented By: Andrew T James
Represented By: Donald Chance Mark, Jr
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?